The Use of Indirect Force in Contemporary Conflicts - An analysis of state support to non-state actors and the legacy of the Nicaragua judgement
(2025) LAGF03 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats undersöker när, och vilken typ av, statligt stöd, till icke-statliga aktörer, utgör ett brott mot våldsförbudet enligt artikel 2(4) i FN-stadgan, med Nicaragua-domen som utgångspunkt. Internationella domstolen fastställde att beväpnande och utbildning av icke-statliga väpnade grupper utgör ett brott mot våldsförbudet, medan finansiellt och, vissa typer av, logistiskt stöd i regel faller under kategorin olaglig intervention. Nicaragua-domen ger dock begränsad vägledning kring var den exakta gränsen går där logistiskt stöd ensamt, eller i kombination, övergår till att utgöra ett brott mot våldsförbudet. Annat stöd, som icke-dödlig utrustning, omfattas inte av domen. Det skapar emellertid en lucka i regelverket.
Trots att... (More) - Denna uppsats undersöker när, och vilken typ av, statligt stöd, till icke-statliga aktörer, utgör ett brott mot våldsförbudet enligt artikel 2(4) i FN-stadgan, med Nicaragua-domen som utgångspunkt. Internationella domstolen fastställde att beväpnande och utbildning av icke-statliga väpnade grupper utgör ett brott mot våldsförbudet, medan finansiellt och, vissa typer av, logistiskt stöd i regel faller under kategorin olaglig intervention. Nicaragua-domen ger dock begränsad vägledning kring var den exakta gränsen går där logistiskt stöd ensamt, eller i kombination, övergår till att utgöra ett brott mot våldsförbudet. Annat stöd, som icke-dödlig utrustning, omfattas inte av domen. Det skapar emellertid en lucka i regelverket.
Trots att Nicaragua-domen är ett grundläggande och vägledande prejudikat, särskilt vad gäller principen om våldsförbudet, har den visat sig otillräcklig för att hantera moderna konflikter präglade av hybridkrigföring och cyberoperationer. Stater har ofta tolkat domen snävt, där det enbart är militärt stöd som anses vara ett brott mot våldsförbudet. Andra typer av stöd, som är svårtolkade ur domen eller helt oreglerade, har inte ansetts utgöra ett brott mot våldsförbudet. Det befintliga rättsliga ramverket reglerar alltså inte alla former av indirekt våld som utförs genom icke-statliga aktörer. Detta har lett till en avsaknad av enhetlig tolkning av regelverket kring indirekt våldsanvändning och därmed en selektiv tillämpning av stater. Bristen på utvecklad rättspraxis har gjort det möjligt för stater att utnyttja rättsliga oklarheter, särskilt genom att motivera stöd till väpnade grupper under täckmantel av humanitärt bistånd, logistisk assistans eller finansiellt stöd. (Less) - Abstract
- This thesis examines when, and what type of, state support to non-state actors constitutes a breach of the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4), using the Nicaragua judgement as a central reference point. The ICJ established that arming and training non-state armed groups amount to an unlawful use of force, while financial and some forms of logistical support generally fall under the category of unlawful intervention. However, the Nicaragua judgement provides limited guidance on the exact threshold where logistical support alone, or in combination, amounts to an unlawful use of indirect force. Other forms of support, such as non-lethal aid, is similarly unregulated in the judgement and creates a legal gap regarding the... (More)
- This thesis examines when, and what type of, state support to non-state actors constitutes a breach of the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4), using the Nicaragua judgement as a central reference point. The ICJ established that arming and training non-state armed groups amount to an unlawful use of force, while financial and some forms of logistical support generally fall under the category of unlawful intervention. However, the Nicaragua judgement provides limited guidance on the exact threshold where logistical support alone, or in combination, amounts to an unlawful use of indirect force. Other forms of support, such as non-lethal aid, is similarly unregulated in the judgement and creates a legal gap regarding the legality of such assistance.
While the Nicaragua ruling remains highly relevant as a foundational framework regarding the indirect use of force, it has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing modern conflicts marked by hybrid warfare and cyber operations. States have often interpreted the ruling narrowly, as though strictly military assistance constitutes an unlawful use of indirect force. Other types of support, which are either ambiguously treated in the ruling or not regulated at all, have generally not been considered violations. As a result, the current legal framework fails to regulate all forms of indirect force carried out through non-state actors. This has led to a lack of uniform interpretation concerning indirect use of force, enabling selective application by states and legal asymmetry. The lack of jurisprudential clarity has allowed states to exploit legal ambiguity, especially in justifying support under the guise of humanitarian aid, logistical assistance, or financial support. Without further clarification, these legal loopholes will persist. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9190138
- author
- Rönndahl Karlsson, Alice LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- International Law, Public international law, Folkrätt, The use of force, Indirect force, Nicaragua, International Court of Justice
- language
- English
- id
- 9190138
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-23 13:26:11
- date last changed
- 2025-06-23 13:26:11
@misc{9190138,
abstract = {{This thesis examines when, and what type of, state support to non-state actors constitutes a breach of the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4), using the Nicaragua judgement as a central reference point. The ICJ established that arming and training non-state armed groups amount to an unlawful use of force, while financial and some forms of logistical support generally fall under the category of unlawful intervention. However, the Nicaragua judgement provides limited guidance on the exact threshold where logistical support alone, or in combination, amounts to an unlawful use of indirect force. Other forms of support, such as non-lethal aid, is similarly unregulated in the judgement and creates a legal gap regarding the legality of such assistance.
While the Nicaragua ruling remains highly relevant as a foundational framework regarding the indirect use of force, it has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing modern conflicts marked by hybrid warfare and cyber operations. States have often interpreted the ruling narrowly, as though strictly military assistance constitutes an unlawful use of indirect force. Other types of support, which are either ambiguously treated in the ruling or not regulated at all, have generally not been considered violations. As a result, the current legal framework fails to regulate all forms of indirect force carried out through non-state actors. This has led to a lack of uniform interpretation concerning indirect use of force, enabling selective application by states and legal asymmetry. The lack of jurisprudential clarity has allowed states to exploit legal ambiguity, especially in justifying support under the guise of humanitarian aid, logistical assistance, or financial support. Without further clarification, these legal loopholes will persist.}},
author = {{Rönndahl Karlsson, Alice}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{The Use of Indirect Force in Contemporary Conflicts - An analysis of state support to non-state actors and the legacy of the Nicaragua judgement}},
year = {{2025}},
}